Why is it so very hard for MSM to allow objective airing of men’s issues? The example of Triple J Hack’s ‘debate’

This evening ABC2/Triple J Hack are to broadcast what is billed as a debate on the topic of ‘Is Male Privilege Bullshit‘. In fact it will most likely be nothing more than yet another bigoted feminist soliloquy.

They have most likely scheduled this program due to the considerable amount of recent publicity concerning the screening of the Red Pill movie, and the feminist lobby’s desperate need to try to claw back some credibility.

For background or updates readers can peruse the Twitter streams for @ABC2, @TripleJHack @TomTilley and/or the corresponding Facebook pages.

ABC2 have invited the likes of Clementine Ford and Nakkiah Lui to join the panel. Of course, if you want to have a fair and balanced discussion you invite misandrists onto the panel. If worst comes to worst then the rest of the sisterhood can claim ‘not all feminists are like that‘, then rinse and repeat.

While Karen Straughan (‘GirlWritesWhat’) features in a promo video, sadly she will not be participating on the discussion panel. Cassie Jaye (‘Red Pill’) was to be interviewed (via satellite) during the show but pulled out stating:

“I already see so many warning signs of inherent bias based on the program’s marketing … I don’t see what I can gain by being a part of this when it’s clear that the show is going to give selective and limited airtime to certain guests over others.” (Source)

Additionally, yesterday ABC2 published this biased and misleading article about domestic violence (‘DV’). The focus of the article is an assertion that the Australian finding that one in three victims of domestic violence are male, is false. This is not the first time that Australian feminists have attacked this statistic.

The article quotes well-known anti-men’s rights advocates Michael Flood and Michael Salter, and includes various factual errors as well as misrepresentations of the MRA perspective on the issue of DV.

Here is a rebuttal of that article prepared by Greg Andresen of the One in Three organisation:

“I would greatly appreciate it if you could look into correcting the following factual errors from your article “What about men?: Challenging the MRA claim of a domestic violence conspiracy”:

  1. The article claims, “In the 2012 PSS, about 33 per cent of men said they had experienced an act of violence from a current partner in the last 12 months. The ABS warns the estimate has a standard error of 25-50 per cent (meaning the real figure could be 50 per cent higher or lower) and “should be used with caution”. If we look at experiences of domestic violence over a longer period, we find the proportion of male victims sharply falls.” The 2012 PSS also found that about 33 per cent of men said they had experienced an act of violence from a current partner since the age of 15. There was no standard error. This is the same proportion, not a “sharp fall”.
  2. It claims, “When we look at other stats, the proportion of male victims also falls below one in three… Emergency departments: Two-thirds of patients presenting for family violence reasons were female.” This is exactly one in three, not a fall.
  3. It claims, “When we look at other stats, the proportion of male victims also falls below one in three. Victoria’s 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence compared several sources…”. The Royal Commission into Family Violence found (I quote), “Over the five years from July 2009, the proportion of male victims has increased and in 2013-14 male victims made up 31% (n=5,052) of total victims of family violence”. That’s pretty close to one in three.
  4. Dr Salter claims, “For men experiencing violence from a female partner, it’s primarily self defensive or it’s expressive in terms of a push or a slap” without citing any research to support his claim.
  5. It claims, “Some MRAs argue the one in three figure actually underestimates the number of male victims of domestic violence, because men are either too ashamed, too stoic, or too chivalrous to report being hit by their female partner… But apart from these anecdotal reports, there’s no other evidence to back up this claim, and no easy way of measuring this potential statistical bias.” The 2012 PSS found that men who have experienced partner violence are 2 to 3 times more likely than women to have never told anybody about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; twice as likely as women to have never sought advice or support about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; up to 40% more likely than women to have not contacted police about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; and half as likely as women to have had a restraining order issued against the perpetrator of previous partner violence. See http://www.oneinthree.com.au/infographicrefs.
  6. Michael Brandenburg said, “Certainly there’s a cohort of men who experience family violence… In our experience a significant number of those experience violence not by intimate partners, but from other family members.” The 2012 PSS found the vast majority of partner and dating violence committed against men is perpetrated by females (94%). Only 6% occurs in relationships with a male perpetrator. See http://www.oneinthree.com.au/infographicrefs.”

The Australian mainstream media have apparently learnt nothing from the marked backlash against the rude and biased treatment of film director Cassie Jaye on The Project and Sunrise TV programs.

It is so incredibly frustrating that they are unable to address men’s issues in a fair and objective manner, and simply provide the public with the facts and different opinions and let them form their own views.

The debate tonight is designed to try to inflict maximum damage on the men’s rights movement. It will only dig the media an even deeper hole in terms of their credibility in the eyes of the community. Instead of bringing people together and fostering understanding and consensus, media stunts like this simply set the scene for more lobbing of grenades from trench to trench.

Media coverage after the event:

Hack critique Pt. 2, by Gary Orsum (22 June 2017) Video

Hack Live: What happened when we debated male privilege (21 June 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread

Bettina Arndt tells why Cassie Jaye ditched Hack Live (20 June 2017) Video

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Privilege, respect and entitlement

Female Privilege Check-list

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media

Another federal government domestic violence inquiry – This one focuses on family law

“On 16 March 2017, a Committee of the Australian Parliament adopted an inquiry into how Australia’s federal family law system can better support and protect people affected by family violence. The inquiry was referred by the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis Q.C. The Committee aims to make recommendations that will improve the system for all participants.” (Source)

Members of the public were able to provide feedback in the following ways:

  • Community statements for individuals who wish to discuss their experiences of the treatment of family violence within the family law system with the committee.
  • Public hearings to gather evidence from stakeholders, including government agencies, non-government organisations, and experts in the policy area.
  • Written submissions addressing one or more of the terms of reference to be received by Wednesday, 3 May 2017.

The Chair of the Inquiry is Sarah Henderson MP, who is interviewed here on Sky News Australia. In this interview Ms Henderson unreservedly commends the work of Rosie Batty (strike 1), as well as mentioning some of the specific issues to be addressed in the Inquiry.

One such issue was the possibility of creating some sort of nexus between the nature of court orders made in relation to spousal support and property settlement, and the presence or alleged presence of family violence in the relationship. This is described in the Terms of Reference at point 4:

“How the family law system can better support people who have been subjected to family violence recover financially, including the extent to which family violence should be taken into account in the making of property division orders”

Men are already being blackmailed with allegations of domestic violence or sexual abuse in relation to child custody matters, and now it seems they will also have to worry about the impact of such allegations on their financial affairs (strike 2). How many more male suicides will this generate?

As of 21 June 2017, 114 public submissions have been uploaded onto the Committee’s web site. I tendered a brief submission which can be accessed here (see submission 113).

Related media articles:

Good men doing nothing‘ by Bettina Arndt (9 May 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread (see comment by ‘SantaOrange’)

Domestic Violence Inquiry To Take On The Family Law System (23 March 2017)

I don’t want no menfolk near my daughters, you hear?

“The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.” (Source)

Thanks largely to the pervasive influence of feminism, anti-male bigotry has been accorded a level of acceptance well in excess of that applicable to other significant segments within the community. This has been reflected in an increasing number of rather biased articles in the mainstream media, examples of which can be found in the following posts:

New Zealand journalist labels men as the ultimate predators
A few observations in relation to yet another article critical of men
How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men
On the issue of traveler safety
Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us

Today I wanted to address an article by Jane Gilmore entitled ‘Be outraged at the abuse of children, not at one mother’s efforts to protect her daughters‘ (2 March 2017). Jane’s piece focuses on an earlier article by Kasey Edwards,  ‘Why I won’t let any male babysit my children‘, and the public reaction to it.

After Kasey’s piece appeared I read three well-intended, but somewhat insipid, rebuttals. These were penned by Ben Pobjie, Melissa Hoyer, and Louise Roberts. Still, the fact that any rebuttals were published is indicative of feminism’s gradual slide from the pedestal of public opinion. A considerable amount of material also appeared on social media, most of which was critical of Kasey’s position.

Jo Abi, on the other hand, wrote an article in Mamamia supporting Kasey’s stance. Interestingly, even in that feminist forum many readers held a different view.

From an MRA perspective this was pleasing to note, the only negative being an unfortunate tendency by some to personalise the issue via referencing the potential danger posed by Kasey’s family.

Jane stepped in at that point to address those taking umbrage at what they perceived as the gender bigotry inherent in Kasey’s position. What follows now is Jane’s article (shown in italics) with my comments inserted in relevant places (and shown in blue font).

A wave of outrage broke and splattered across social media this week over an article by Daily Life columnist Kasey Edwards about the choice she and her husband have made to keep their children safe from sexual abuse. In it, Edwards pointed out the following statistics:

“…the ‘best case’ scenario is that 1 in 20 boys are sexually abused. The worst case is that 1 in three girls are.”

“Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by males.”

These disturbing facts should indeed provoke outrage. But they didn’t.

This is the page in the Australian Institute of Family Studies web site where Kasey sourced the statistics noted in her article (scroll down to ‘How many Australian children are sexually abused‘). The author describes the difficulties compiling these statistics and their consequent limitations. Note too the basis for the “1 in three girls” statistic mentioned in both Kasey and Jane’s articles.

Kasey’s chosen strategy does not “keep their children safe from sexual abuse”. This is because a) men aren’t responsible for every instance of sexual abuse, and b) her daughters would still have contact with men at other times. Remember that the definition of abuse used here does not require actual physical contact. Kasey’s approach only theoretically reduces the likelihood of sexual abuse occurring. Not all personal threats and dangers. Not even all child abuse. Sexual abuse only.

You see, sexual abuse is just one of the four types of child abuse (and in fact it’s the least common variety). Sexual abuse is the only form of child abuse wherein surveys consistently identify more male than female perpetrators (although there are still plenty of those).

No surprise then that this is the form of child abuse that feminists keep the media’s focus on. A similar thing happens in the realm of the domestic violence debate, whereby all those forms of DV other than heterosexual male-on-female violence are air-brushed out of the picture. 

Instead, the backlash was in response to Edwards’ acknowledgment that men are the most likely perpetrators, and the resulting decision she and her husband made to not have men care for their children without a woman present.

Cue articles and endless anger about how hurtful and offensive this is for men. Followed by strawman arguments about Edwards’ husband caring for their children without supervision, despite her article clearly stating this was a decision they reached together.

Likewise, suggestions that her children would miss out on male role models and have a warped view of men. (Edwards clarified on The Project this week that her daughter has a wonderful male teacher).

Writer Amy Gray, who skilfully moderated a long and mostly respectful debate on this topic, said, “The uproar over this article hasn’t been about how to combat rape culture, community enablement, lack of law or police reform, or suitable therapy or support for victims. The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do. The uproar should be tackling the overwhelming male presence in sexual assault of children.

It’s hardly surprising that the focus of feedback provided by readers mirrored the narrow scope of the article. Kasey did not address the issues above, nor did she indicate that she would welcome dialogue on those issues. If Kasey expected more holistic feedback then she should have written a broader and less injudicious article.

And it’s curious that no link was provided to that “long and mostly respectful debate”. Don’t tell me it reflected poorly on team feminism?

“I want men to examine their role in this culture,” she added. “I want them to actively combat it and question men who refuse to participate in that.”

On the contrary, the volume of feedback generated by Kasey’s article clearly demonstrated men’s *insistence* in participating in the discussion whilst rejecting the demonisation of an entire gender based on the actions of a very small minority.

The real difficulty with Edwards’ article was that she outlined a single approach to preventing child abuse in her own family. But if we are talking about preventing child abuse at a community level then we need to talk about a community-wide response.

Which comes back to the perpetrators. Again, they are mostly men, and yet men are so rarely part of the discussion about prevention, other than to object to the facts being discussed.

Why is it that men are so much more likely to commit violence and abuse? What happened to those men, where did they learn this behaviour? How can they change?

Clearly there is a problem with violence in our community, and a lot of that is due to men. A very, very small minority of men. A point that seems perpetually lost on feminists. And where are all these men objecting to the “facts”? Alternatively, where are all the feminists discussing prevention with regards to issues like circumcision, the sexual assault of men & boys, male suicide, etc?

What positive outcome/s are borne from the incessant criticism of men and the manner in which they are portrayed in the mainstream media? The consistent lack of recognition for the contributions made by men in terms of the well-being of the community? The paucity of government funding support for addressing men’s health and other men’s/boys issues? The bias of the legal and justice system against men?

The active support of the feminist lobby sure wouldn’t hurt, but their pointed indifference to date is hardly encouraging.

Turning our attention now to women, which occurs all too rarely other than in relation to some issue of perceived victimhood, why are there so many violent and abusive women? (NB: trending upwards). Why is this not being acknowledged and addressed? esp. bearing in mind that they are producing the next generation of not just child abusers, but perpetrators of domestic violence generally.

Exploring this, without defensiveness and with a genuine desire to find solutions, is the most valuable way men can participate in protecting children. It’s disturbing that many men are so aggressively unwilling to do this, leaving the burden of finding solutions to everyone else.

Seriously Jane, imagine if an article appeared wherein the husband set out his strategy to prevent his sons being killed by only having male carers. The reaction from your ilk would not have been merely “defensive” – they would be livid.

And Jane, what of the many instances where people do demonstrate “a genuine desire to find solutions”, and are attacked for doing so simply because they dare propose solutions that are contrary to leftist/feminist dogma? Want examples? 

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
White Ribbon campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)
Sallee McLaren must write on the blackboard “I must not challenge the feminist narrative”
Australian feminist attacks integrity of advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence (Here Jane Gilmore sabotages Australia’s only advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence, only to then criticize the men’s rights movement on the basis that it doesn’t do anything but criticize feminists)

This is why mothers are so often vilified when they do something as simple as wait outside while their children go to the toilet, and conversely, vilified again if they acknowledge the facts of child abuse and act to protect their children from possible perpetrators.

The author was not criticized for wanting to protect her children, but for making a decision of dubious efficacy in the absence of an objective and unbiased consideration of all relevant factors. 

It’s not surprising given how fraught it can be to navigate the issue that parents like Kasey Edwards and her husband look for solutions that don’t depend on community-wide protection. Their choice is not right for everyone – indeed for some, it’s very much the wrong choice. But for them, it’s the best way to keep their children safe. And given the deep, lifelong trauma caused by child abuse, it is both justifiable and understandable.

Their solution, however, only works for their circumstances. It relies on them always having options for childcare that fit within their parameters, which is not readily available to many parents.

There is no proof that this approach “works” for anyone, full stop. As to whether it’s practical for parents to even attempt, your point is taken.

It also assumes that they, their family, and their children’s friends are always in partnered, heterosexual relationships. In the Edwards’ policy, children of single fathers, or in families that do not include people who identify as women, already suffering exclusion and stigma, are excluded even further.

Even for families who do have the option to have women always present, it places an extra burden on those women, who are already taking on the majority of (unpaid) emotional and domestic caring labour. This is particularly difficult in the context of the systemic economic disadvantage women suffer, which requires men to take on an equal share of parenting. It’s a quandary that can’t be solved by making women the “abuse police”. Men have to take responsibility for prevention and commit to unambiguous action on the causes and realities of abuse.

Please, jettison the male-shaming and #HeForShe nonsense. Both men and women parent children. Both men and women abuse children. Everyone has an equal role to play in reducing the incidence of abuse.

While there are undeniable problems with the Edwards’ choice, the outraged criticisms of it are equally problematic, and frankly blind to the realities of how abuse occurs and its effect on victims.

Pot-Kettle-Black (big time)

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released a paper this week describing the grooming practices of abusers. Grooming is not something abusers only do to victims. They also deliberately create relationships with parents and caregivers that involves trust, friendship and dependence. And they make sure their victims know about it.

Was this specific to male abusers? The paragraph that follows implies it was.

As feminist writer Cecilia Winterfox told Fairfax Media, “Every time we say, ‘but my male friends are so lovely’ we make it harder for victims to speak out. It reinforces and demonstrates clearly to them the reflexive disbelief they will almost certainly face. It’s a kind of cultural gaslighting to victims, and a signal of protection to abusers”.

And every time feminists say ‘men can’t be raped (by women)’, ‘domestic violence is men’s abuse of women’, ‘women are only violent in self-defence’, ‘men don’t suffer negative effects from domestic violence as much as women do’, etc etc etc. That also makes it more difficult for “victims to speak out” right? But that doesn’t seem to deter feminists from making these statements. More equality-when-it-suits?

The royal commission paper was specifically about institutional responses to child abuse, so the recommendations were focused on cultural change to identifying and reporting grooming techniques. Which may work in well-monitored organisations, but it’s not something any individual parent can enforce in their social group.

Deanne Carson, co-founder of Body Safety Australia says a blanket ban on men caring for children is not the solution. “We need to empower adults to be a champion for children. This means debunking myths around childhood sexual abuse, teaching them to spot grooming techniques and supporting them in being able to address concerns about any individual’s concerning behaviour.”

It also means broadening the debate beyond child sexual abuse, firstly by considering all other forms of abuse. We also need to consider related issues such as the sexualisation of children, and again, both men and women play a role in this process.

The problem with these strategies, as Carson acknowledges, is that they don’t keep all children safe, they just protect the children whose parents can implement them. And not all parents feel able to do this.

Which is why the solution needs to go back to the community and the abusers, not victims or their carers. And we can’t do that while men are still refusing to discuss the source of the problem.

As Edwards told Daily Life: “Of all the people who have told me how ridiculous and offensive I’ve been, not one of them has come up with a feasible alternative to keep children safe”. <end of article>

Jane expands her views on the matter in an item in her personal blog, asserting that Kasey’s response was understandable and should be respected:

… often the responses are emotional because there is no other way to respond to such trauma. Those emotions are real, valid, complex and demand respect.”

Jane says this even though there is no suggestion in Kasey’s article that her children had previously been subject to abuse (and I sincerely hope that is not the case). Jane then adds:

“That respect is not present when men who have never been forced to feel those emotions are simply offended by the facts.”

Cheap shot. Because men have never been subjected to abuse as children, or fathered children who have been abused by others, right? And because I didn’t notice any reader feedback wherein the “facts” (presumably the quoted abuse statistics) formed any part of that individual’s objection to the article. Seemed to me people were upset about inference, opinion, and plain old bias.

And wait a minute. The feedback on Kasey’s article that Jane found so objectionable was contributed by men and women in roughly equal measures. It’s just as valid or invalid therefore to suggest that women are also “still refusing to discuss the source of the problem“. Unless Team Feminism has bestowed honorary bloke status on the largely silent majority of women who choose to hold a non-feminist-compliant opinion.

Earlier we noted Amy Gray’s haughty dismissal of the negative reaction to Kasey’s article: “The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do.”

Let’s not detour to talk about single dads, yard work and the like. Let’s pretend Amy is right and proceed on the basis that men’s feelings count for nought. As presumably then, in the interests of gender equality, so too for feminists’ feelings.

Because rest assured, men certainly do want to be a part of the solution to the scourge of child abuse, but it seems most unlikely that it will be on feminists’ terms.

See also:

Safety around dogs: Half of all kids get bitten by dogs, so don’t let one near your daughters.

Reddit discussion threads in relation to the Kasey Edwards article:(r/mensrights thread #1) (r/mensrights thread #2) & (r/australia). The latter thread also provides links to several other threads on this topic

Feminism: The demonization of males, by Stacy McCain (2 March 2017)

Gender bias and wasted opportunities at the 2017 National Family Violence Summit

Today was the second and final day of the National Family Violence Summit. The Summit was facilitated by the Tara Costigan Foundation and sponsored by BaptistCare. An extract from today’s program is shown below:

And no, in case you were wondering, there was no corresponding session to discuss what women could do to help reduce family violence.

How would this aspect of the program be interpreted by the average Joe or Josephine in-the-street? They would probably see it as implying that men were responsible for family violence, and that therefore it’s men’s duty to eradicate it.

This is the equivalent of having every man in Australia stand at the front of the classroom with a dunce’s hat on. Except the domestic violence lobby is not saying men are stupid, but that they are evil.

This is an affront to men everywhere, and it is difficult to imagine a situation where women are now smeared and disregarded in such a manner.

And this despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of men never commit acts of violence, and that male victims of domestic violence are rarely acknowledged.

Look, I understand that the basis for establishing the Tara Costigan Foundation was the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a bestial man. That man is now in jail and sadly we cannot undo what happened to Tara. But the Summit is, or at least should be, about addressing domestic violence in its totality.

The ‘big picture’ of domestic violence comprises substantial numbers of abusive men and women, and of both male and female victims of that abuse.  There is also a considerable (yet rarely acknowledged) element of bi-directional violence, where both partners perpetuate abuse.

And what of women’s role in addressing domestic violence, not only as empowered and autonomous individuals, but also in recognition of the fact that many women are also abusive. Not only is there a long-running problem with child abuse by women, but there is also a growing problem with female violence generally. These issues are alternately either excused away (“women are only ever violent in self-defence“), minimised or ignored altogether.

The agencies that deal with domestic violence are heavily imbued with feminist doctrine. They continue to falsely portray domestic violence as heterosexual male on female violence, despite this constituting just one slice of the pizza (albeit probably the largest one). Feminist agencies address domestic violence in the context of a theoretical approach known as the Duluth Model. The validity of the Duluth Model is hotly debated, and its success is questionable.

There have been so many talk-fests and inquiries in relation to domestic violence. Almost without exception their value has been severely compromised by a failure to open the floor to all ideas, especially those contrary to feminist dogma. That appears to have also been the case with the Summit, given that none of the speakers represented a men’s rights group, a father’s group, or an advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence such as One-in-Three.

Why is this allowed to continue particularly considering the amount of public funds being expended, and the miserable progress being made?

The situation in the U.K is similar to Australia in this regard, but some progress is being made via vigorous lobbying by groups and individuals such as GenderFreeDV and Philip Davies MP.

Here is Australia we have balanced views on DV being expressed by a small but dedicated number of journalists such as Bettina Arndt, Miranda Devine, and Corrine Barraclough. As far as sitting politicians go however, there is little cause for optimism just at the moment. One outcome of this situation is that there is almost no funding provided at all for male victims of domestic violence – or indeed for addressing men’s/boys issues generally.

Please can someone finally take some real leadership on this issue?

I did not attend the Summit and await the report that is to be prepared for submission to the government. I will re-visit this post at that time and make any necessary adjustments. In the interim I stand ready to be corrected by an organiser or an attendee if what I have stated is in error. Should such a person wish to detail their experience at this event please submit a comment below.

Here are some links to related news coverage:

Rosie Batty joins 7.30 to discuss the summit on family violence (28 February 2017)

Former army chief David Morrison calls for national day for domestic violence victims (28 February 2017)

The good thing to come out of horror of Tara Costigan’s murder (1 March 2017)

 

Men’s Referral Service: Clayton’s* support for male victims of domestic violence

“The Men’s Referral Service provides telephone counselling and referrals for Australian men impacted by family violence.” (Source)

The Men’s Referral Service (‘MRS’) web site does not provide any information about the management of MRS nor its legal or financial details. Readers are informed that:

“The Men’s Referral Service is a service of No To Violence, Male Family Violence Prevention Association (NTV). Find out more about NTV.”

Further details regarding MRS can however be accessed in their ACNC register entry, including their constitution, list of directors, and financial returns. The most recent financial report (year ending 30 June 2015) showed annual income of just over $2 million, of which just under $1.7 million was received in the form of government grant/s. The biggest single expense, just over $1.7 million, was listed as “staffing costs”.

Whilst the material provided in the MRS web site provides some pretence about their interest and involvement in supporting male victims of domestic violence, they are very much a pro-feminist organisation whose primary interest is the isolation and treatment of abusive men.

The MRS was recently thrust into the limelight as a result of a decision by feminist NSW Minister, Pru Goward, to award them an extremely lucrative grant ($13 million over 4 years) to ostensibly provide support services for male victims of domestic violence.

That ill-judged decision was discussed in some detail in this Nov 2016 article by Bettina Arndt, and also in this media release from the One in Three advocacy group – which I would recommend that you now take a moment to read.

This news came some time after the original media release announcing the availability of funding for male victims of domestic violence. This was much- applauded at the time by individuals opposed to the gender-biased nature in which government grants had been dispensed up to that point in time:

“For the first time in NSW, male victims of domestic and family violence will receive dedicated support, NSW Attorney General Gabrielle Upton and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Pru Goward announced today.

“As part of a record investment in domestic and family violence prevention, the 2016-17 Budget included $13.3 million over four years to make it easier and faster for men and boys to get help when they need it,” Ms Upton said.” (Source)

Thus this has been very much a case of two steps forward and one step back in terms of achieving a reasonable and equitable level of support for male victims of domestic violence.

*To learn the meaning of the term Clayton’s see here

See also:

One man’s grassroots insight into the Duluth Model domestic violence perpetrator programme (15 December 2016) Helps explain, amongst other things, why unsuitable groups like MRS are awarded contracts like this one.

Should we scrutinise ALL reports of family violence? (2 December 2016)

Someone has described how the new feminist DV intervention system in Australia works in menslib and askfeminists. Its absolutely disgraceful (February 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in reading:

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

Another government inquiry to tell us that domestic violence = men beating women because patriarchy

Excuse me NSW Government, your gender bias and lack of objectivity is showing (again)

 

Excuse me NSW Government, your gender bias and lack of objectivity is showing (again)

On 21 October 2016 the Daily Telegraph published an article entitled ‘Domestic violence: Perpetrators would receive warning texts and videos‘.

I have reproduced the article below with my own comments inserted and shown in blue, and with further comments following the article:

DOMESTIC violence thugs would be sent texts messages and videos to remind them not to hurt their wives or drink too much under a Baird government trial to overcome the “existing service gap” for serial offenders.

A large percentage of perpetrators of domestic violence are female – see an abundance of research listed in this post

The bid to “break new ground” in the war against domestic violence comes as new figures show “almost half of those who reoffend do so before the court case is finalised”. The average court time frame is about four months.

“This means a large proportion of DV offenders reoffend before they have had any contact with Corrective Services NSW or access to any programs provided to them,” government documents say.

Female DV offenders don’t have access to programs regardless of the “average court time frame”, because the NSW government only provides programs for male offenders

 

The Department of Premier Cabinet’s “Behavioural Insights Unit” is calling for a “digital solution” to “support behaviour change in domestic violence perpetrators”.

Just out of curiousity, how many staff in the Unit are self-professed feminists versus others?

It said there was growing evidence “timely prompts” via apps or “digital channels” can help stop serial behaviour.

Can someone please provide links to this evidence? Who undertook it? Was domestic violence specifically included in the definition of “serial behaviour”?

Examples that should be looked at included “videos showing the impact of DV on victims”. One example contained in the documents shows a text that reads: “Hi Rick, if you’re going to the pub tonight don’t forget to make a plan for where you will sleep. Remember you are doing this for Matt and Susan.”

The Baird government wants to cut domestic violence reoffending by five per cent by 2019.

Opposition Family and Community Services spokeswoman Tania Mihailuk said a mobile phone app was a “waste” of money.

“This government has got its priorities wrong, its focus should be on secure accommodation for women and children fleeing violence,” she said.

For a fleeting moment I thought the Opposition might have had something sensible to add there. Bad luck about the men fleeing violence huh? Tania, everything mentioned in this article is a “waste of money”

Domestic Violence NSW chief executive Moo Baulch said “well resourced non-government specialist services” were needed.

With substantial emphasis on ‘more money for private organisations‘ and ‘only for womenfolk’. Read more about Moo and her gender-biased organisation here

A DPC spokeswoman confirmed it was testing the market to “gauge interest, ideas and cost for developing resources to support behaviour change in DV perpetrators”.

Wait, you mean behaviour change in male DV perpetrators, right? Because the NSW Government is apparently happy to look the other way re: female perpetrators.

**article ends here**

Conclusion

I can’t believe that the NSW government or any government would be associated with such an asinine proposal as this. It just highlights the gynocentrism, anti-male bigotry and the arrogance of all involved.

Can you imagine a proposal to send out text messages to female teachers about not interferring with their students? to mums about not neglecting or abusing their kids? or for that matter to aboriginal youth about stealing cars or breaking into homes? No? Now why would that be?

But more than that, I just cannot believe that it would make one iota of difference to the incidence of DV.

We so need a new approach to tackling DV – and a whole new team of people to drive the process. People who can think above and beyond their cherished feminist ideology, and who would be willing and able to recognise and address the whole issue.

New Zealand journalist labels men as the ultimate predators

I had the misfortune to read an article in the NZ Herald entitled ‘No predator more dangerous than the human male‘ by Rachel Stewart.

This is the self-same journo who last year informed us that There’s no doubt that New Zealand’s epidemic of domestic violence lies firmly at the feet of men. As does the solution.Oh dear, someone hasn’t bothered to even dip their toe into that extensive body of domestic violence research that didn’t pass through the feminist filter.

But back to yesterday’s article about men as predators. You can probably guess the bulk of its contents. Comparisons between men and different wild animals. The writer alleging the receipt of abuse and death threats for speaking out for women. (Presumably these threats came from male predators, because feminists don’t do stuff like that) And then some more about men being horrible. Oh, and a bit of Trump-bashing to freshen up those other tired feminist cliques.

The final paragraph read:

“Before I hear you shriek “not ALL men”, how about you good guys start calling out the bad guys, as well as sexual predators. Because you know who they are.”

Yes that’s right all bad guys show a secret sign that only other men can see, and which signals that they are bad. If only the good men then did their duty, presumably by way of citizens arrests or possibly even summary execution, allowing the womenfolk to remain safe whilst going about their business.

Thankfully there are no bad women, thus the issue of good women having responsibility for calling them out is moot. We can disregard the countless rare aberrations detailed in the following blog posts as but rambling inventions of an unhinged MRA and his vast army of similarly brain-washed academics, journalists, public servants, etc:

On violence perpetrated, or instigated, by women and girls
Regarding female perpetration of paedophilia and underage sex
On deaths related to domestic violence
On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence
Mostly female perpetrators, so child abuse is a gendered crime then?
The often contrasting media reaction when mums and dads kill their children

Rachel went on to tweet:

stew5To which I responded:

stew3

The article to which I linked was this fabulous offering from Janet Bloomfield (aka ‘Judgy Bitch’). Please take a moment to read it now if you are not familiar with this work.

Heavy lifting” by feminists … what a joke! If there’s any lifting to be done they just start a hashtag and recruit some gullible white knights to get down and dirty.

And after that, quelle surprise!

stew1

stew2

Hmm. Well given the choice between being a vile gender bigot clinging to a tainted ideology that will without doubt soon find itself on the wrong side of history … and being thick … I think I’ll settle for the latter.

Finally, here is a link to the page that tells people how to lodge complaints regarding material published in the NZ Herald. That is, of course, if you can spare a few moments away from all that predation.

That porn-sharing web site: Time for a reality-check

Today I wanted to offer some comments in relation to an article entitled The police response I never expected, by Nina Funnell (18 August 2016). This article was prompted by the now highly-publicised discovery of a web site that is alleged to contain many nude photos of Australian high school girls.

The web site that was the focus of recent Australian media attention went off-line for a time only to re-emerge ten days later. The author of this article claimed that “police managed to have it taken down“, although I have found no evidence of that being the case.

Nina bemoans the ‘fact’ that Australian authorites are not taking the problem seriously, and that the action they did take included warning girls not to take compromising photos of themselves. The latter action is apparently not seen as constituting ‘education’ but rather ‘victim-blaming’.

This is the default feminist response to the issue of taking responsibility for one’s own actions, and doing what one can to minimise risks to oneself. This aspect, in the context of online porn, was addressed in an article by Corrine Barraclough. Articles detailing the feminist perspective on this issue can be reviewed here and here.

By way of background, articles *very* similar to those that recently appeared in the Australian media have regularly appeared in other western countries in recent years without generating much in the way of a fair and meaningful response. A cynic might suggest, given the salacious appeal/guaranteed outrage of the subject, they appear on a cycle as per gender wage gap, etc.

It is dubious whether Australian police can wield any power in relation to the ongoing operation of the web site. And even if they could – presumably via cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies – they would still need to identify those photographed and prove they were underage at the time they were photographed. No small task, especially when it appears that very few of those whose photos featured in the web site have lodged police reports. Perhaps, realistically, all Australian police could do was to warn young people of the danger of allowing themselves to be photographed whilst naked.

It’s ironic that various articles use the term ‘victims’ to describe the girls whose pictures are featured in the web site, whilst running photos of the girls within their articles (see for example).

The article contains a quote from Sharna Bremner, from ‘End Rape on Campus Australia‘:

“I agree we must be talking to young people about these issues, but we should start by talking to potential perpetrators about the consequences of their choices, rather than always putting it on girls to manage [and prevent] their own exploitation and victimisation”

Wait a minute – time for a reality check, for we know that:

As a consequence, Ms Bremner’s implication that “potential perpetrators” = men/boys is incorrect, as is the implication that girls have a monopoly on “exploitation and victimisation“. I might note here also whilst implied, it has not been verified that the web site in question only contained photos of nude women/girls.

Ms Bremner was also quoted as saying that:

“To direct parents to warn their daughters, without also directing them to talk to their sons is inappropriate. This stems from the same logic that tells girls not to get drunk or wear short skirts, while failing to spend even one second talking to boys about consent”

I agree that parents and other authority figures should talk to both boys and girls, but they should give the same message to both, in the knowledge perpetrators/victims aren’t split along gender lines.

This reminds me of ‘respectful relationships’ programs in schools, such as those run by the White Ribbon Campaign, that lecture boys about respecting girls but not necessarily the reverse. This despite that fact that Blind Freddy can see that girls can, and often do, disrepect and abuse boys.

Nina then proceeds to hold up the highly contentious Canadian public ‘awareness’ campaign known as ‘Don’t be that guy‘ as a good example of how authorities should take a more active role by educating (=shaming) people (=men/boys) into not posting online photos of people (=nude girls).

This despite the fact that the value of public awareness campaigns in changing errant behaviour is generally considered to be dubious, as is discussed in this post.

Nina claims that the Canadian campaign led to a 10% drop in the number of rapes in Vancouver BC. This article may be the source of her claim, but the evidence is hardly conclusive.

I do agree with her though that, in general terms, education campaigns targetted at specific groups in the community are more likely to be effective than broad-brush public campaigns. You just have to make sure you target the right groups based on objective evidence rather than ideological persuasion.

And yet curiously feminists lobby for/support broad-brush public awareness campaigns in the case of domestic violence, sexual violence, sexual harassment/discrimination, etc. And although these are directed at the community generally, they still routinely imply that perpetrators/potential perpetrators are male, whereas in fact they are invariably either male or female.

And to close off this discussion, just one example of the double-standard that invariably goes hand-in-hand with any feminist position on gender:

Wilderness School girls under fire for ‘hook-up wall’ of boys, who claim a double standard of sexual objectification (11 November 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Len & The Lamprey: The other side to the issue of financial abuse

I have been thinking of writing a post on this issue for some time, but was finally spurred into action after reading an article entitled ‘The financial abuse that affects 2 million Australian women‘, by Bianca Hartge-Hazelman. Bianca is the Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Financy, a finance publication for women. Bianca informs us that:

“Research indicates that financial abuse, at the hands of one partner over another in intimate relationships, is widespread and common in Australia.”

“Financial abuse is a form of domestic violence which each year costs the economy $15.6 billion, according to the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (NCRVWC).”

So how many men are also subject to financial abuse at the hands of their partners? We don’t know as Bianca says nothing whatsoever about *that* side of the equation. Bianca’s article is not unusual in this regard, given that most articles on financial abuse ignore financial abuse perpetrated by women. Another Australian example is ‘Gloves off as the abused take control‘ (18 August 2015).

I could spend hours hunting for relevant statistics, but what’s the point when feminists are invariably nonplussed when confronted with facts anyway. Instead I thought I would take a different tack and recount to you the experiences of a male friend of mine. Let’s call him ‘Len’, and let’s call his ex-wife ‘The Lamprey‘ (or TL for short).

Lamprey-09-Doug-Owen

Len is one of the countless men who have been – and still are being – subjected to financial abuse by women they love, or once loved. His financial exploitation remains ongoing, although the worst is certainly over. He loves his kids, and with a shared custody arrangement in place Len has no choice but to remain in fairly close contact with his ex.

And no, I can assure you that I am not Len, but I do know him well enough to guarantee the accuracy of this account.

Len worked hard and accumulated assets. Although only in his thirties at the time he met his future wife, he was on the way to securing the ability to retire in his 40’s. Anyway they met and fell in love, and moved in together. A little later they married and were subsequently blessed with two youngsters.

The Lamprey had already trained as a teacher and worked in that profession for about six months before latching onto Len. I think she had also done a very limited amount of modeling work. To my knowledge she hasn’t worked another day since the time she moved in with Len.

Whilst living with Len, TL *chose* not to work. AFAIK there was no pressure from Len either way. Len paid for domestic help (i.e. cleaner, nanny, etc), which was just as well given her aversion to grocery shopping and housework. She also sent the kids out to child care at the first opportunity. How lucky that TL had chosen a husband who didn’t mind cooking. So, you might be asking, what did she do with her time?

The Lamprey loved to spend Len’s money. She went out for long lunches with friends at expensive cafes, she went shopping for clothes, and sometimes she took herself to stay at (you guessed it) expensive health spa resorts.

One of TL’s less endearing habits was waiting for Len to come home from work and then – as he began cooking/helping kids with homework/etc, she would say “Oh, I might go and have a shower now“, not to be seen again until dinner was on the table.

All the time Len doted on his wife and kids. He didn’t fool around with other women despite having ample opportunity to do so. They occasionally quarrelled on the few occasions when Len raised the issue of TL’s selfishness and profligate spending, but he certainly was never abusive towards her. Mostly he just let it pass.

Len bought some land in a prestige location and set about building the house of his dreams. It was a long, tiring and costly process. When it was finally finished (after about 2 years) he then, with the now enthusiastic help of TL, set about furnishing it.

By some strange quirk or coincidence, soon after they moved into the new house, TL announced that she no longer loved Len and asked when he could move out. TL had already briefed a lawyer and went straight into ‘attack mode’ to get the most generous settlement achievable. Len was completely blind-sided. He refused to move out so TL rented an apartment – at Len’s expense of course.

As reality set in Len was heartbroken. He tried hard to get TL to attend counselling etc, but she was lukewarm on that idea. Upon realising she had little or no intention of continuing their marriage, and with the added stress of parenting, work and legal proceedings, Len descended into depression and required counselling and medication. His friends and family were worried about both his physical health and state of mind, and incredibly angry about TL’s behaviour.

Allow me to illustrate. On one occasion TL came to collect the children from Len’s house. Len was so ill that he had called an ambulance. TL could not even be bothered to wait with Len to ensure he was OK until the ambulance arrived.

Let’s halt at this point to consider what TL added and subtracted from their 6-7 years of marriage. On the plus side TL contributed two children and companionship for Len.

On the negative side, TL contributed not one dollar to the household budget, did the barest minimum of housework, and when-ever possible farmed the kids out to commercial childcare providers, or to the care of her husband or extended family.

The Lamprey extracted all her very considerable living expenses, 5 star holidays, her divorce-related legal expenses, a large proportion of Len’s assets, and spousal support for 12 months. Len asked TL if he could delay payment of her ‘share’ of the marital home (his dream house) as the real estate market had crashed, and he would have to sell it at a fire-sale price. No, she didn’t care, she wanted ‘her’ money immediately.

I wonder how much of Len’s money, obtained by TL thanks to our outdated and gynocentric legal system, will be preserved for their childrens’ future and how much has already been squandered?

And you know what? Just before her spousal support payments were due to terminate TL had the temerity to ask Len if he could keep the payments going for a while longer. She needed to finish her yoga course before she could earn an income – she said she planned to make a career as an instructor. Thank goodness Len trod on that fabulous idea.

Not long after that, TL moved in with another guy. She married him but wouldn’t give him the kids that he wanted so they divorced not long after. Then she moved in with some retired sugar-daddy type character. So from one sponsor to the next as the fun and/or funds started running out.

Since the divorce TL has failed to meet her responsibilities to provide for 50% child support with respect to both the time she devotes to the children, and to her financial contribution to their support. Len has let her off the hook for the sake of the children, in order to preserve some degree of harmony. He rationalises the situation by saying that if they were still married he would be paying 100% of the kids expenses anyway. Throughout the process Len has been patient and gracious to a fault.

Does TL feel in any way guilty about her behaviour? I haven’t asked her, but I don’t believe so. Hell no. Her attitude, which I suspect is quite common, is that she only took what she had a right to take under the law. So that’s gotta be fair, right? Of course, nil consideration given as to whether the law/family court itself is actually fair. Well, TL et al, it’s not.

Is this not financial abuse? Damn right it is. Am I saying that most divorces are like this? No, but Len’s situation is far from being a rare occurrence in my experience. In fact I don’t think I would know anyone in my network of friends/family/acquaintances who has not seen this pattern play out several times within their own circles. Can it be any wonder that more and more men are reconsidering the wisdom of getting married?

Anyway that’s what can happen when couples divorce (or simply separate in the case of de-facto couples). But the extent of financial abuse of men by women goes well beyond divorce. Consider:

  • ‘Sperm-jacking’, where a woman impregnates herself with sperm recovered from a condom, etc, and then demands child support
  • Intentional pregnancy in the hope of trapping a man in marriage and/or having a child who is financially supported by another (thanks to mandatory child support till age 18) that occurs after a woman falsely tells a man that she is using contraception
  • False claims of pregnancy from women seeking ‘payment’ of claimed abortion expenses and/or alleged child support (where for example they live in another country and are less likely to be trapped in a lie).
  • Situations where a man or boy is raped by a woman, again resulting in mandatory child support (one legal precedent).
  • Paternity fraud where a man is falsely told he is the father and pays child support. There are many instances where men have become suspicious and arranged DNA testing, found they were not the parent, but the court still subsequently ordered that they continue paying child support nonetheless.

In a growing number of cases we shall also see men subject to the same type of financial abuse traditionally experienced by some women. This is the result of the growing number of couples where the man assumes the role of house-husband. This decision may be voluntary or it may result from his inability to secure employment in a work environment that is increasingly favouring women. In such cases the male partner may have either a much lower income than his wife, or no income at all.

I am not surprised that these issues were not addressed in an article on domestic financial abuse by a feminist, for none of them are even blips on the feminist radar screen. And this despite the fact that they can be life-changing events in a man’s life, and in some cases life-ending events. Let that sink in, and ponder on it the next time you hear a feminist crowing about how men should respect women and do more to support them and their causes.

As for me, I cannot and will not respect narcissistic scroungers of either gender.

See also:

In May 2017 much media attention was given to a practice labelled as ‘stealthing’, whereby men remove their condom during sex without their partners consent (example). Few articles even made passing reference to the fact that women perpetrate a similar act when they falsely claim to be using contraceptives in order to ‘trap’ a man in a relationship and/or secure an income stream via child support payments. This issue was addressed in this article, and then in a follow-up article by Martin Daubney.

Bell v Landry: paying your wife an ‘allowance’ is an insult (10 May 2017) One-sided wisdom from misandrist journalist, Jenna Price.

Karl Stefanovic and Cassandra Thorburn complete carving-up of assets six months after announcement (6 May 2017) Gee, it costs a guy a lot to keep in touch with his kids nowadays, huh? Another divorce-rape

Man killed himself after being conned out of his life savings by fake girlfriend he met on dating site (5 May 2017) UK

Prostitute allegedly conspired with two male friends to rob cashed-up miner, but inadvertently killed him (4 May 2017)

Millionaire tycoon loses legal fight to stop wife who cheated on him walking away with half of his £150 million fortune (12 April 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread here

When having separate bank accounts is the opposite of independence, by Polly Dunning (21 March 2017) Australia. And again, because only men financially abuse and humiliate their partners.

The biggest financial risk for women today? Embarking on a relationship (19 March 2017) One can always rely on The Guardian to provide an alternative and suitably distorted view of reality.

Unwanted child is no grounds to sue mum for lying about taking the pill: court (4 March 2017)

Now it’s men who are the victims of lonely hearts fraudsters (8 March 2017) UK

Revealed: the hidden problem of economic abuse in Australia (2 March 2017) This article provides corresponding figures for abuse of men, although the definition employed excludes many of the variations of abuse noted in this post.

Economic abuse a relatively unknown form of domestic violence (2 March 2017)

‘Getting divorced? Go after his pension’ (25 February 2017)

Men outraged over paying child support for kids who are not theirs (23 February 2017) USA

Conwoman Sanaa Derbas jailed for dating scam targeting lonely men (23 February 2017)

A website dedicated to trapping men with falsified pregnancy documents, sonograms, test results, etc. is ruthlessly investigated … many male victims interviewed (13 February 2017) Reddit discussion thread with linked video.

‘Reliable honest’ husband who handed his wife, 51, all of his ready cash in a divorce 15 years ago is told he must up her maintenance after she blows the lot on ‘unwise property investments’ (7 February 2017) UK

Chilling confession of ‘Sextortion Queen’ in Philippines (24 January 2017)

‘He took away my money and my freedom’: Financial abuse is just as destructive as physical abuse but often goes unnoticed (22 January 2017) UK

Very much focused on the abuse of women, but at least this article notes that 40% of victims (in the cited study) were male.

When care becomes control – financial abuse cuts across cultures (17 January 2017) Why bother surveying men when financial abuse only happens to women, right?

Nearly a third of parents unwilling to leave estate to their children for fear they will lose it in divorce (4 January 2017)

Nearly half of men who take paternity test are not the real father (3 January 2017) UK

The boss and the secretary: Five reasons powerful men get beautiful girls (20 December 2016) Australia. And another article promoting the notion that only men exploit women.

Woman Claims She’s Paying College Bills With Positive Pregnancy Tests (19 December 2016) USA

This year the most attractive men in the world will lose hundreds of millions to their divorcing wives: Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt and now George Clooney too: his wife is ready to get at least $ 300 million dollars from him (11 December 2016) Reddit men’s rights discussion thread

Mum charged with faking DNA tests to con ex into thinking he was baby’s dad (8 December 2016) UK

Teacher who started a £30m-a-year fashion empire from his garage fights to stop his ex-wife getting £2.7m of his fortune – more than a decade after they split (29 November 2016)

Domestic violence also has an economic penalty – we need to tackle it (29 November 2016) and Financial abuse: The hidden form of domestic violence affecting millions (25 November 2016) Two more articles re: financial abuse that doesn’t even hint that men can also be victimised in this manner

Banks enhance support for family and domestic violence victims (22 November 2016) Australia. The guidelines seem to be reasonably gender-neutral, although I wonder to what extent they will be as applied in real-life. There is also no mention made of the reality of false accusations being made as a form of abuse.

Woman asks her 20 boyfriends to buy her a new iPhone, then sells them all for house deposit (2 November 2016)

Mariah Carey and James Packer split gets nasty with name calling, $50M demand (29 October 2016)

Doctor sues gay friend for child support, 16 years after he first donated sperm to her (27 October 2016)

Sumner Redstone Sues Ex-Companions for Elder Abuse to Reclaim $150M in Gifts (25 October 2016)

Jets, vacation homes, Botox all factors in cancer center founder’s divorce (21 October 2016) USA

Males Out of Work – NYT Does Not Get It (18 October 2016) It’s worth considering that whilst there exists this backdrop of financial abuse, the financial well-being of many men is declining considerably rendering them less able to rebound after losses are incurred.

Marital wallet rape is bad, m’kay? (6 October 2016)

Fake pregnancy: MGTOW (2 October 2016) Video

Blame the Patriarchy! (29 September 2016)

James tells Mariah: ‘Stop spending all my money!’ (26 September 2016)

Man wins fight against paying support for another man’s child (23 September 2016)

ShowerThought about paternity fraud (11 September 2016) Reddit discussion thread

‘I’m not paying for that’: Financial abuse is awfully common (6 September 2016)

Well at least this article acknowledges that some financial abuse of men does occur … only to minimise it by saying “While men are also affected by financial abuse, the majority of cases are women”. Hmm, sounds like so many domestic violence article doesn’t it?

Eddie the Eagle’s fallen flat on his face: Divorce reduces to ski-jump hero to living on egg sandwiches in his shed because his wife has taken £180,000 Hollywood windfall (5 September 2016)

Mum convinces husband to pay for £6,000 boob job then becomes glamour model and dumps him (1 September 2016) UK

“I pleaded with him to lend me the money and knew it would give me a new lease of life” … “I didn’t really have any desire to pay him back. If I had to choose between the boobs and him, it was an easy choice.”

[Parental rights] This is what we’re up against (BURIED in a legal advice sub) (30  August 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Berlin to Require Mums to Come Clean on ‘Milkmen’s Kids’ (29 August 2016) Then read how an Australian feminist thinks this is all about slut-shaming (no mention of the notion of fraud or men being due some modicum of respect.

Comedian Aries Spears: ‘Women … Rape men financially’ through child support demands (24 August 2016)

Sydney mum defrauded lonely men of $2 million (23 August 2016)

American Slavery: Man Paying Child Support for Another Man’s Kid (1 August 2016) USA

US man forced to pay support for a child that’s not his (30 July 2016)

And in a cruel twist, it ‘Turns Out That the Husband’s Job Is Probably the Best Predictor of Divorce‘ (28 July 2016) So those men get hammered twice

In Defense Of Gold Diggers: It’s Not Always What It Seems (17 January 2015) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Nurse faked DNA test and pretended friend’s baby was her own to trick one-night stand walks free from prison (1 December 2014)

Relationship problems and money: Women talk about financial abuse by Prue Cameron (2014) Australia

“Financial abuse in a family violence context involves behaviours that ‘control a woman’s ability to acquire, use and maintain economic resources, threatening her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency’” (p13)

Financial abuse of men not even recognised in the definition used for this research project, which subsequently surveyed only women and made recommendations that only applied to women. This despite the fact that most or even all of the specific forms of abuse discussed, such as being dragged into and out of family court, also clearly are also experiences that also apply to men.

National Organisation of Women (USA) opposes measures that would help protect men from paternity fraud (6 July 2014)

Meet the woman who’s dating her way into meals at top Toronto restaurants (25 October 2013)

How to snag a rich man: Confessions of a gold digger (31 July 2013)

Rape victim in the USA (a boy) is sued for child support (2004) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Should paternity tests at birth be mandatory (12 February 2013) Video

Should we be doing more to expose paternity fraud? (4 September 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

http://news.yahoo.com/video/man-may-jailed-not-paying-203459828.html

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/35rlw6/a_paternity_test_will_be_available_to_buy_over/

Can you make a male baby sitter pay child support?

bludge

Other posts in this blog of relevance to this issue include:

The ‘Marriage Strike’ and MGTOW
On Spousal Maintenance / Alimony
We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?
Who pays on dates?
On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

How one union got drunk on feminist ‘kool-aid’ (CFMEU)

“The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is Australia’s main trade union in construction, forestry, furnishing products, mining and energy production. The CFMEU has offices in all capital cities in Australia and in many major regional centres with the national office of the union in Melbourne. The union has an estimated 120,000 members and employs around 400 full-time staff and officials.” (Source)

That Wiki entry also tells us that “in August 2010, the CFMEU donated over $1.2 million to political activist group GetUp! to pay for TV airtime for a women’s rights ad-spot condemning Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.” Exactly what benefit its members extracted from that expenditure is unclear. 

This union represents sectors of Australian industry whose employees are predominantly male, and I would assume that more than 90% of its members are men. I could not locate this information in the CFMEU web site.

I later learnt that the CFMEU failed to provide a response for the 2010 ACTU Women in Unions survey. They did provide information to the ACTU at a later date, but details of female rank and file membership are not provided in subsequent ACTU reports.

I then unsuccessfully sought clarification about the number of female members from both the CFMEU and the ACTU. Why so coy, guys?

The industry sectors from which the CFMEU draws its members are also notable for the level of workplace death and injury that occurs in each. Those deaths and injuries also affect women, but mostly as dependants of male victims. With regards to fatalities, there were 191 workplace deaths in Australia in 2015, of which approx 95% were men.

If there was a case for an organisation to encourage the support of women in enhancing the welfare of men, then this might well be one. I was therefore surprised to see, on 12 July 2016, the union issue a tweet in support of feminist activist Van Badham featuring the photograph shown below. And here is Van Badham returning the love. Nice.

CFMEU

Granted this is a White Ribbon banner, but presumably its message is supported and promoted by the union. This correspondent’s initial impression is that ‘brown-nosing’ the feminist lobby is accorded a higher priority by the union than is pursuing their core responsibility, the welfare of its own members. Who could wonder why union membership has slumped at the rate that it has?

In the case of domestic violence, the issue about which Van Badham was pontificating on Q&A, at least one third of the victims are men. If we again consider fatalities alone, there were 158 domestic violence-related deaths in 2015, and again 1/3 of these were men.

So although there are more workplace deaths than DV-related deaths, strangely I don’t recall ever seeing feminists carrying banners demanding action on workplace safety.

Worse yet, male victims of domestic violence are routinely ignored, denied or even mocked by feminists and pro-feminist organisations like White Ribbon.

Bear in mind that there would surely be many victimised men within the rank and file membership of the CMFEU. How much support do they receive from their union? SFA, I would suspect. And according to this article it doesn’t look like women get much respect from the union either. Funny thing that.

As I have already said in another post in this blog, it’s high time that there was some quid pro quo with regards to seeking support from women and women’s groups for some of the many issues that have a negative impact on men.

Unfortunately however that’s not how it works at present. The feminist narrative, and all component parts thereof, must be publicly recognised and given the highest priority. Men are expected to drop everything and rush to assist strong, independant women tackle whatever real or imagined obstacles are encountered by them.

Women on the other hand are not to be held responsible for anything, least of all to help construct or support remedies that benefit men.  At least that’s how it is with feminists – and theirs are the female voices getting all the airtime in the media.

What a state we now find ourselves in.

Am I saying that unions should be denied a voice in relation in relation to matters affecting the broader community? Of course not. I simply saying that in this case, their priority should be their members, the broader community, and the feminist lobby. In that order, rather than the reverse.

I would say to the CFMEU, ‘wake up to yourselves!’, but I’d most likely be wasting my time doing so. And considering the mood in the reader’s comments sections with respect to articles addressing gender bias, I know that I’d not be alone in recognising the need for a better and fairer approach to these issues.

Regrettably the ideological rot of the regressive left has well and truly set in, and the sort of common sense and decency that was once integral to the Australian character is rapidly becoming just a memory.

Unfortunately the same trend is apparent elsewhere, and in the U.K for example the Trades Union Congress joined forces with hardline feminist group ‘Everyday Sexism’ to produce a survey and report on harassment in the workplace. In addition to other methodological flaws they only surveyed women. Male victims of harassment? None to be found = harassment only affects women. Wrong.

harassed